What species are ethical to hunt with a 10mm?

Depends of who's ethics your going by; Some people kill out of need , some out of 'sport', so are you gonna eat that pig or just kill it for fun and brags? You have to impose you own rules 'ethics' when making each and every shot, and know why your doing so.
When in doubt , while hunting, get closer.
That 10mm will drop a Moose in dense willows, no problemo.....

Are you gonna tell the wife and kids that there no bacon tonight because you couldnt take the animal in a ''fair chase'' manner ? Just Kill it.......any way you can... would be a hungry response, kill it 'ethically' if you have other dinner plans....

Watched a guy on a hunting show kill an African Buffalo with one recently. With the best loads a 10mm beats 357 mag and is a lot closer in performance to 44 mag than most realize. It has been used successfully in several situations to stop grizzly attacks. In fact it is becoming quite popular in that role supplanting larger caliber revolvers. A 10mm with good bullets is going to be more effective than archery tackle and guys kill all of those species with arrows. If a 10mm is unethical to use, so is a bow and arrow.

The limitations are more on the handguns than the cartridge. In bear country (black or griz) 10mm semi-autos such as the G20 or G29 make a lot of sense for protection. Compared to revolvers they are much more compact, lighter, more rugged, hold many more rounds and recoil much less. But heavy hardcast bullets @ 1200-1300 fps give you just as much penetration as you'd get from 44 or 45 caliber magnum revolvers. Especially when those magnum revolvers are using barrels shorter than 6".

I'm not a handgun hunter. But if I were I'd use a 10mm on anything I'd hunt with a 44 mag. But as a strictly hunting tool I'd still choose a long barreled revolver. Most people shoot them more accurately due to better triggers and the longer sight radius. With 6-8" barrels the magnum revolvers hit a little harder than 10mm. From 4" or shorter barrels a 44mag doesn't do anything a 10mm can't do from a 4" barrel.

They would be absolutely effective on hogs- I carry a 40 in hog country and it has worked fine. In fact, I have killed hogs with a well placed stab to the chest with a 6" blade (dogs were involved, but the blade is what killed the pig- and fast). Black bear guides in Maine mostly carry 45 ACP, at least where I hunted- and they swear by them for tracking wounded bear, and I even saw one wounded bear put down with 1 9mm round. According to wikipedia, there is some Danish dog sled patrol unit that carries Glock 20 pistols (10 mm) as polar bear defense, but I have no idea if this plan has ever been successfully executed.

I would draw an ethical distinction between "hunting" any large game with a handgun and "defense from" said game if confronted by them aggressively.
Any of these animals should be HUNTED with a rifle. Period. The handgun should be carried for finishing off a wounded animal or close-contact defense only.
That said, would I put meat on the table with a 10mm if the family was hungry and that's all I had- you bet.
My 2 cents.....you do watcha want.

jmr40 said:

A 10mm with good bullets is going to be more effective than archery tackle and guys kill all of those species with arrows. If a 10mm is unethical to use, so is a bow and arrow.

Click to expand...

Comparing arrows and knives to bullets is like comparing apples and watermelons. The edged weapons kill by hemorrhage. Bullets cause bleeding but shock is their main component.

According to the article in this month's "American Hunter", large caliber hand guns are most effective on large thick-skinned animals with large diameter bullets with a flat, wide meplat that don't expand. This allows the bullet to travel straight through the animal and exit thus leaving 2 holes to bleed from and help track the animal.
Thin-skinned animals like deer can be dropped with expanding bullets if hit in the lungs.

In my limited attempt to hunt with a handgun I view my ethical responsibility simply, shooting ability.

The state decided what caliber is ethical and I abide by their decision. as for the 10mm if I didn't already have a hunting gun in .45 I would buy a long slide Glock with optics package in 10mmm

I figure that based on what has been done by hunters I have known is that the .357 is quite adequate for whitetail. Range limited, of course. My uncle killed a few deer with his 1911, but at rather close range.

As far a skill limits, the distance should be no farther than the ability to hit the end of a beer can with pretty much every shot.

The guy on tv hunting the African buffalo with a 10mm was Razor Dobbs. He has taken many different animals with his Dan Wesson 10mm including big pigs and elk.

The 10mm is a very capable round. 44mag level? Nah....But I'm sure there's a way to fanagle the numbers so the very upper end of the 10 gets close to the lower end of the 44.

Art Eatman said:

As far a skill limits, the distance should be no farther than the ability to hit the end of a beer can with pretty much every shot.

Click to expand...

Preferably not one you just consumed.

Ethically, only humans should hunt with 10mms. Other primates lack either the manual dexterity and or the maturity to use a 10mm to hunt.

Ballistically whatever you can hunt with a 44-40 a 10mm can do.
Whitetail, hog, and I guess black bear over bait all seem very reasonable.

Penetration is going to be the name of the game and many animals have been taken with well designed cast bullets such as those from bear tooth.



As an aside:
I plan on doing some testing with 10mm, 357, and 44 bullets in various media.

So far, and only for fun, a 9mm Tula bullet will penetrate further than a 10mm arms core 180 through sheet metal and drywall.

Not scientific but interesting.

What species are ethical to kill with a round is a fairly complex question.

Ethics are just moral or holding principles for proper conduct. Principles are just the foundation of our individual beliefs.

In other words, ask 20 different people and you'll get 20 different answers. Go to a PETA website and you would get an entirely different set of "ethical" beliefs.

That said I would put the 10mm with decent loads into the medium game category inside 50 yards but shooting a 350 lb hog in a trap with a .22lr doesn't break any moral principles I have either.

Deer and smaller hogs, no more. IMHO, Razor Dobbs is a stunt hunter using light for caliber bullets on critters he shouldn't be.

jmr40 said:

Watched a guy on a hunting show kill an African Buffalo with one recently. With the best loads a 10mm beats 357 mag and is a lot closer in performance to 44 mag than most realize. It has been used successfully in several situations to stop grizzly attacks. In fact it is becoming quite popular in that role supplanting larger caliber revolvers. A 10mm with good bullets is going to be more effective than archery tackle and guys kill all of those species with arrows. If a 10mm is unethical to use, so is a bow and arrow.

The limitations are more on the handguns than the cartridge. In bear country (black or griz) 10mm semi-autos such as the G20 or G29 make a lot of sense for protection. Compared to revolvers they are much more compact, lighter, more rugged, hold many more rounds and recoil much less. But heavy hardcast bullets @ 1200-1300 fps give you just as much penetration as you'd get from 44 or 45 caliber magnum revolvers. Especially when those magnum revolvers are using barrels shorter than 6".

I'm not a handgun hunter. But if I were I'd use a 10mm on anything I'd hunt with a 44 mag. But as a strictly hunting tool I'd still choose a long barreled revolver. Most people shoot them more accurately due to better triggers and the longer sight radius. With 6-8" barrels the magnum revolvers hit a little harder than 10mm. From 4" or shorter barrels a 44mag doesn't do anything a 10mm can't do from a 4" barrel.

Click to expand...

Sorry but this is just patently false. You need some serious mathematical and intellectual acrobatics to come to that conclusion. Just like comparisons with the .41Mag, if you look at the heaviest 10mm boutique loads and the lightest, watered-down .41/.44 loads, this may 'seem' true. Unfortunately for its fans, the 10mm is at its upper limit with a 230gr at 1100fps but that isn't even really getting started for the .44Mag. While some factory loads might be in that range, a real full pressure .44Mag starts with a 240-250gr at 1450fps, which is still 1300fps out of a short barrel. Also unfortunate for 10mm fans, the .44Mag, like any other revovler cartridge in its class or bigger, is at its best with heavy bullets.

10mm
220gr at 1150fps
230gr at 1100fps

.44Mag (4 5/8")
250gr at 1300fps
310gr at 1300fps
320gr at 1280fps
330gr at 1225fps
355gr at 1130fps

So you can see that the 10mm and .44Mag achieve about the same velocity with their heaviest bullets but the .44Mag does so with 125gr greater mass and a significantly larger front area.

jmr40 said:

In bear country (black or griz) 10mm semi-autos such as the G20 or G29 make a lot of sense for protection. Compared to revolvers they are much more compact, lighter, more rugged, hold many more rounds and recoil much less.

Click to expand...

People love to compare unloaded Glock weights to steel revolvers because it fits their narrative. However, when you compare loaded weights, your Glock 20 weighs almost as much as a 629MG. A 329 is even lighter, loaded. Either is going to be more accurate and easier to hit with than any Glock, which has about the worst sights and trigger for sporting use. Capacity is irrelevant. The revolver may recoil more but it's not for nothing. A better comparison would be to a 4" K-frame .357 which is comparable in power and identical in weight.

jmr40 said:

I'm not a handgun hunter.

Click to expand...

No kidding.

Craig,
I'm not saying you're wrong. I would never take my 10mm after African buffalo. But I did see him take a big boar and a nice bull elk with it. First shot locked up the elk. Second dropped it. Now, do I think he should have? I don't know. But he did. And he put his shots right where they needed to be. And the bullets did their job. That much cannot be denied.

So what does that tell us? Does it show that my 7.5" 44mag Redhawk might be a little over the top for deer and pigs? Possibly. He did prove that his 10mm will kill both. Handily. And his 10mm (or my 10mm for that matter) on it's best day, is no match for my 44 in terms of performance.

I think it's definitely got a place in a handgun hunters arsenal if they so choose. We harp on bullet placement. And he proved what you can do with a 10mm when you do what we preach. For an autoloader, it's definitely got some power. The numbers you posted on the upper 10mm loads can be easily beaten by 75-100fps with the right powders. But they are a good general representation of what the 10mm does. I'd say it's a little better than your mid/upper 45LC round. And then one decides to handload for the Colt and the 10mm gets left sitting by itself at the bus stop. But remember, it's an autoloader.

Of course you saw it, would they have published it if it had been an utter failure? When you watch a movie do you see the stuntman failures or just the big successful stunt? I also have to look beyond a dead critter. A 155gr 10mm is a terribly light bullet, comparable to a 125gr .357. I would like to know exactly what the bullet did and how deep it penetrated. I would bet money that it penetrated very little and that he waited for the absolute perfect broadside shot because the bullet would have failed if it contacted any heavy bone. Just because he performed the stunt does not make it a good idea. I don't want something that only works when everything is perfect. I want something that works when everything is not perfect, because it usually isn't.

75-100fps isn't going to change anything. I don't think the 10mm has anything on a bigger cartridge. Velocity is overrated and not in plentiful supply in a handgun. What is in their favor are diameter and mass. So I'll take diameter and mass over velocity any day of the week.

jmorris said:

Ethics are just moral or holding principles for proper conduct. Principles are just the foundation of our individual beliefs.

Click to expand...

Correct. So..., the question for me would be, "Do I have a reasonable expectation that my skill with X firearm at Y range firing that cartridge will result in a quick, humane death for the game animal?" If the answer is "yes" then it would be ethical. I would expect a 90% or better chance of quickly dispatching the animal with a single shot. If the circumstances were such that I was not confident of that level of performance for any number of reasons, I'd have to pass on the shot. That's simply me.

LD

Correct. So..., the question for me would be, "Do I have a reasonable expectation that my skill with X firearm at Y range firing that cartridge will result in a quick, humane death for the game animal?"

Click to expand...

We also must ask if it is a nuisance species and if we are ok with slow deaths as long as they die. I have poisoned various species that would have died quicker with even a bad shot from a 10mm.

CraigC said:

Of course you saw it, would they have published it if it had been an utter failure? When you watch a movie do you see the stuntman failures or just the big successful stunt? I also have to look beyond a dead critter. A 155gr 10mm is a terribly light bullet, comparable to a 125gr .357. I would like to know exactly what the bullet did and how deep it penetrated. I would bet money that it penetrated very little and that he waited for the absolute perfect broadside shot because the bullet would have failed if it contacted any heavy bone. Just because he performed the stunt does not make it a good idea. I don't want something that only works when everything is perfect. I want something that works when everything is not perfect, because it usually isn't.

75-100fps isn't going to change anything. I don't think the 10mm has anything on a bigger cartridge. Velocity is overrated and not in plentiful supply in a handgun. What is in their favor are diameter and mass. So I'll take diameter and mass over velocity any day of the week.

Click to expand...

Well it appears he used 200gr hardcast ammo from Double-Tap at 1300fps. And he also uses Barnes. Here's the article if you even care to read it.

http://razordobbsalive.com/razor-dobbs-kills-two-cape-buffalo-10mm-auto-pistol-interview

Anything a .357 can take. .357 from a 6" barrel pushes near 800 ft lbs with a hot 180 grain bullet, which is in the range of the 10mm. Accuracy, of course, is imperative.

jmorris said:

We also must ask if it is a nuisance species and if we are ok with slow deaths as long as they die. I have poisoned various species that would have died quicker with even a bad shot from a 10mm

Click to expand...

True, the rules differ for a "nuisance species" (though some differ on which animals go on THAT list ), and I know a lot of farmers who poison groundhogs..., they don't hunt them as game either. Neither do I; they're varmints. Feral felines are also a nuisance group. For me when you add the word ethical into the mix, I'm thinking of game animals for the table or trophies.

LD

"...a guy on a hunting show..." Usually staged. It show how far the thing ran before dying? Saw an African hunting movie years ago where the guy shot an elephant with a bow. Dumbo, hit in the lungs, ran half a mile before dropping.
"...For wild hogs I'd think a hardcast would be..." Much better than any HP. Knew a guy who went to PA years ago for a hog hunt. He was told no HP's. A solid is better than either. Anyway, the issue is how well you can place the shot. Assuming you've worked up an accurate load.
"...in the range of the 10mm..." 800 ft-lbs. is much higher than any 10mm Auto load. Highest is with a 155 grain bullet at the muzzle of 775 ft-lbs.

BigBore44 said:

Well it appears he used 200gr hardcast ammo from Double-Tap at 1300fps. And he also uses Barnes. Here's the article if you even care to read it.

http://razordobbsalive.com/razor-dobbs-kills-two-cape-buffalo-10mm-auto-pistol-interview

Click to expand...

That's dismal. Worse than the 155gr he used on elk. Like I said, it's nothing more than a stunt and his rhetoric about "experts" is reprehensible. He's the handgun hunting version of Steve Irwin. If you want to see a handgun Cape buffalo hunt done by someone who takes it seriously, read Ross Seyfried's article on it.

IMO, you could make your 3" group an 8" group, from a field position. I don't think it would be appropriate for moose or elk. I'd limit the range to 100 yds.

The 10mm can anchor anything that a 357 magnum could, and that is its limit. I would feel comfortable with either on a hog or white tail sized deer. Case capacity actually goes to the 357 magnum, with 26.2 gr of water vs 24.1 gr. Versatility in the field actually goes to the 357 magnum revolver, with the ability to shoot 90 grain wadcutters for squirrel, rabbit and other pot sized animals to 250 grain bullets at 1200 fps in the right revolver, all without changing springs.

There is a series of articles on Beartooth bullets in the tech section, well worth the read. The author makes the statement that 1100 fps from any mid to large bore handgun should be enough at ethical ranges. Think about it, what is the longest ethical shot one should take? Definitely beneath 100 yards, maybe 125 with a scoped handgun, in which case the bullet may lose 100 fps. The proper hardcast bullet with a large meplat will make from a .6 inch to .8 inch permanent wound in the animal at those speeds. A faster bullet makes a larger wound, but it was not significantly larger for the effect on the hand, the ears, and the gun, or for the bruising and bloodying of the meat. The bullet doesn't experience too much drop, you don't take a pounding, and if you need more penetration, step up a caliber or two for more bullet weight.